Reform of the Reform?: A Liturgical Debate

By Thomas Kocik

Disturbed by the direction in which the post Vatican II liturgical reforms have moved, two fictitious representatives of mutually antagonistic movements debate the remedy for "correct" liturgical reform.

This unique work presents a debate between a "traditionalist" who argues for a return to the pre-Vatican II liturgy, and a reformist (no liberal himself) who advocates a new liturgical reform more in keeping with what the Council fathers had in mind. They bring to the debate the insights of renowned authorities on the liturgy, including Cardinal Ratzinger, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Michael Davies, Fr. Brian Harrison and Fr. Aidan Nichols.

This book is written for anyone interested in the Church's liturgy, and the controversies surrounding the liturgical renewal. It is both a primer for those who lack the theological and liturgical expertise to articulate their dissatisfaction with the state of the liturgy, and an excellent resource for those specialists who would appreciate having a single volume for consulting salient points from numerous authorities.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ignatius Press
• Release date: Jan 15, 2010
• ISBN: 9781681495408

Book preview

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am sincerely grateful to two of my brother priests for their assistance in preparing this book. The Reverend Peter Stravinskas, S.T.D., of the Newman House Oratory in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, read the initial draft and reassured me that it merited publication. A diocesan confrere, the Reverend Timothy Driscoll, scrutinized the entire manuscript and offered helpful suggestions. It is a comfort to me to know that these two friends deem my work a useful contribution to the escalating (and often passionate) discourse about the reform of the sacred liturgy following the Second Vatican Council.

Also deserving recognition is the Reverend Monsignor Paul Langsfeld, S.T.D., Professor of Systematic Theology at Mount Saint Mary Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Though he was neither directly nor knowingly involved in the making of this book, his courses on sacramental theology greatly enriched my understanding of the inexhaustible depths of tradition and brought me to appreciate the authentic liturgical movement that began long before the 1960s. It is a testimony both to his enthusiasm for the subject and to his pedagogical aptitude that, nearly a decade later, I remain unwilling to dispose of my class notes.

ABBREVIATIONS

CCC        Catechism of the Catholic Church

MRR        Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origin and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), trans. Francis A. Brunner, C.SS.R., 2 vols. (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1951 and 1955)

SC          Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (December 4, 1963).

INTRODUCTION

The reform of the sacred liturgy has been one of the most debated and divisive issues in the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Traditionally minded critics of the revised liturgy generally fall into two groups: those who are attached to the pre-Vatican II liturgy and those who call for a reform of the liturgical reform. For the sake of convenience, we shall call the former group traditionalists and the latter reformists.¹

Neither group is pleased with the contemporary liturgical situation in the Western Church. Massive ignorance about the fundamental nature of the Mass; the precipitous decline in the rate of Mass attendance everywhere since 1965; loss of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; the removal of tabernacles and the destruction of communion rails; the replacement of the altar with a table; doctrinally ambiguous and offensively banal prayers; the manipulation of the liturgy for every conceivable personal, ideological, and political agenda (feminism, fuzzy ecumenism, and so on); an archaizing and sometimes neo-gnostic tendency toward arcane rites and equally abstruse language to accompany them (scrutinies, mystagogy, catechumenate);² the diminution of the priest’s role in the face of new lay ministries (extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, among others) and the (allegedly) consequent dearth of priestly vocations; the wholesale abandonment, almost overnight, of a centuries-old sacred language and musical patrimony; the glorification of the profane (folk Masses, rock Masses, liturgical dance)—these are the fruits of a sweeping revolution that occurred in the wake of Vatican II. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, a peritus at the Council and now the prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is candid in his appraisal of the contemporary liturgical scene: We have seen the sacred liturgy degenerate into a sort of show, in which an attempt is made to make religion look interesting by using fashionable follies and shallow cliches, which, for the liturgical innovators, produces a fleeting success, but only serves to repel more and more those who are looking for God rather than a spiritual show-master in the liturgy.³

Traditionalists and reformists alike seek to restore a pronounced sense of the sacred and transcendent dimensions of worship and to halt the seemingly endless array of banalities, abuses, and innovations that mark the modern liturgical landscape. Precisely how to go about this, however, is a point of contention. For traditionalists, the remedy for our liturgical malaise is a return to the old Latin Mass, the rite of Mass celebrated just prior to the Vatican II reforms. Reformists, on the other hand, call for an implementation of what they perceive to be the true intentions of the Council. Each side deems the other’s agenda inherently flawed and ultimately unsatisfying. The reformed liturgy itself is problematic, say traditionalists, based as it is on questionable liturgical theory and ambiguous theology; hence, reforming the reform is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Reformists counter that liturgical abuses happened before the Council, too (though these were often of a different kind), that Vatican II did in fact order a revision of the traditional Roman rite, and that not all changes have been for the worse; better, then, to reform the reform than to cling stubbornly to obsolete liturgical books.

Which movement, the traditionalist or the reformist, is the more feasible one? Which better serves the Church? And must one side prevail?

Thus far, what these two camps of liturgical conservatives have been saying about each other has been unflattering, if not vilifying, despite the fact that there is more that unites than divides them.⁴ And there has been virtually no direct interaction between them. This book aims to redress that problem, even if in a contrived way, by bringing traditionalists and reformists into dialogue. I am convinced that both sides have legitimate arguments and concerns that neither side can afford to ignore. Also, I believe that their heretofore mutual antagonism is counterproductive and that a traditionalist-reformist engagement can go a long way toward achieving the liturgical stability and suitability so desperately needed in Roman-rite Catholicism.

CHAPTER I

THE TRADITIONALIST POSITION IN BRIEF

The traditional Mass, the ancient Mass, the Mass of the ages, the immemorial Latin Mass—these terms refer to the Roman rite of Mass as it was celebrated up to Vatican II. In 1969, four years after the Council ended, Pope Paul VI introduced a rite of Mass wholly divorced from the long, uninterrupted tradition of the Roman rite—a tradition codified by the Council of Trent (1545-63); hence also the terms Tridentine Mass and Mass of Saint Pius V. Despite all protestations to the contrary,¹ there is no seamless continuity or substantial identity between the pre- and post-conciliar rites. The Missale Romanum of 1962 (the last of the preconciliar editions of the Roman Missal) constitutes the last codification of the Mass of the Roman rite. Save for its use by traditionalist communities (whether in communion with Rome or not), the Roman Catholic Mass would be virtually extinct.²

Intoxicated with the strange brew of progressivism, primitivism, rationalism, and ecumenism, the architects of the reform purposely downplayed the allegedly outmoded Catholic dogmas of transubstantiation and sacrifice. Not only is the new rite doctrinally anemic, it is also heavily laden with rationalist philosophy and consequently lacks the mystical spiritual quality of the ancient Mass.³ Because the disparity between the traditional rite and the new rite is best expressed by the term rupture, the so-called reform of the reform is a pipe-dream. Even in its official form, the Novus Ordo Missae⁴ is not the traditional Mass of the Roman rite. It is, on the contrary, an artificially concocted and ecumenically tainted rite,⁵ a Frankensteinian hodgepodge of occidental and oriental, traditional and contrived, Catholic and Protestant elements.

The traditional Mass, on the other hand, robustly and unambiguously expresses the unchanging truths of the Catholic faith, especially the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and the unique and indispensable role of the ordained priest. It is the fruit of 1500 years of natural development. It speaks to the heart as well as the head, and it does not easily lend itself to manipulation or doctrinal deviation. Tried, tested, and true, the old Mass should be available to all Catholics (leaving aside the question of what to do with the new rite), especially since (a) Vatican II never abrogated the Missal revised by Saint Pius V, and (b) the Catholic Church has always tolerated a multiplicity of rites, even in the West.⁶

CHAPTER II

THE REFORMIST POSITION IN BRIEF

It is mistaken to think that the only way to redeem the liturgy from its unhappy state is to return to preconciliar forms of the Roman rite. The traditionalist premise, that since the Council there has been a complete breach with tradition, is exaggerated: what traditionalists often call novelties and impurities are in fact elements retrieved from the Church’s past. The traditionalist agenda is wed to a nonhistorical view of the liturgy (and of the Church in general) that romanticizes and absolutizes a particular epoch in the Church’s life, namely, the four centuries between Trent and Vatican II. In addition, much of the traditionalist propaganda unfairly equates contemporary liturgical abuses with the reformed liturgy itself. Despite its problems, the liturgical renewal has yielded good fruit (most notably, the recovery of a corporate sense of worship), the seeds of which were planted well before the Council. Finally, for those Catholics born in the last thirty years or so, the new liturgy is not new at all; it is their only experience.

What we need is not a return to the past (as if reality has not changed since 1962), but an implementation of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963) according to the letter of the Constitution itself. This entails the recovery of certain elements and patterns of prayer that have been all but lost since the 1960s (for example, Latin and Gregorian chant) and, in the light of postconciliar experience, a critical reassessment (if not suppression) of some practices that now enjoy official approbation (for example, Communion in the hand, female altar servers, the celebration of the whole Mass facing the people).¹ A new liturgical reform—better, a reform of the reform—would also require an enrichment of the current Missal so that its continuity with the past can be more easily shown. Ofcourse, this is no overnight project. Its success will depend largely on the willingness of the bishops and their liturgical offices to carry it out, while avoiding the same mistakes made in implementing the conciliar reforms.²

CHAPTER III

RETURN TO THE OLD RITE, OR FIX THE NEW? A DIALOGUE

Our study of the restoration / reform controversy will take the form of a dialogue between fictitious representatives of the traditionalist and reformist movements: T. and R., respectively.¹ Bear in mind that there is no predetermined solution toward which the discussion winds its way. My intention, rather, is to analyze the arguments put forth by traditionalists and reformists with a view to clearing up misunderstandings, elucidating the complexity of the situation (hence the folly of mutual anathematizing), and coming up with a reasonable strategy for achieving a more satisfactory liturgical life in the Latin Church. (While the sacred liturgy includes not only the rite of Mass but also the Divine Office, the sacraments, and sacramentals, we will focus on the Mass, the jewel in the crown of the liturgy.) If this work should incite a fruitful conversation among real people, then I believe it will have proved worthwhile.

Renewal or Rupture?

R.: The chief premise of the traditionalist movement is that the post-conciliar liturgical reform, by its extension and brutality, represents a disturbing upheaval, as a radical rupture from the traditional Roman liturgy.² You traditionalists would have us believe that the Roman rite had always taken the form by which it was known just before Vatican II. Expressions such as the traditional Mass or the ancient Mass or the Mass of all time imply that the Roman Missal fell from heaven ready-made somehow and that Vatican II intervened to break this long, uninterrupted tradition. But this view does not square with the historical facts, as Cardinal Ratzinger explains:

The Missal which appeared in 1570 by order of Pius V differed only in tiny details from the first printed edition of the Roman Missal of about a hundred years earlier. Basically the reform of Pius V was only concerned with eliminating certain late medieval accretions and the various mistakes and misprints which had crept in. . . . In 1614 [sic], under Urban VIII, there was already a new edition of the Missal, again including various improvements. In this way each century before and after Pius V left its mark on the Missal. On the one hand, it was subject to a continuous process of purification, and on the other, it continued to grow and develop, but it remained the same book throughout. Hence those who cling to the Tridentine Missal have a faulty view of the historical facts.³

Note what His Eminence says about Pius V wanting to remove accretions and to restore noble simplicity in areas where it had become obscured. This is essentially the same language found in Sacrosanctum Concilium, which sought additionally to reintroduce practices that had disappeared, despite the fact that they represented a true source of richness for divine worship:

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance. Parts which with the passage of time came to be duplicated, or were added with little advantage, are to be omitted. Other parts which suffered loss through accidents of history are to be restored to the vigor they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.⁴

Now, if a priest is unfaithful to tradition because he celebrates Mass according to the new Missal⁵ instead of the 1962 Missal (or an earlier version), could the same charge be made against those priests who used the revised Missal of 1634 instead of the 1570 Missal? Was Pope Urban VIII wrong to modify the 1570 Missal, considering that his predecessor, Pope Saint Pius V, in his bull Quo primum tempore, established in perpetuity the right to use the 1570 Missal?⁶ Who would seriously insist that the Missal should be frozen at some particular point in time, never again to be modified? Yet that is exactly what one occasionally hears: Pius XII was wrong to reform the rites of Holy Week. . . "John XXIII should have retained the second Confiteor. . . The 1965 Missal was the beginning of the end. . . The Council never mandated changes to the traditional Mass", and so on. Which is the traditional Mass: the one codified by the Missal of 1570 (Saint Pius V) or 1604 (Clement VIII) or 1634 (Urban VIII) or 1962 (Blessed John XXIII)? The answer is: all of these, of course. Yet, traditionalists deny that the Missal of Paul VI is traditional. How do you make sense of that?

T.: You have attacked a straw man. No traditionalist actually thinks that the Roman rite came prepackaged from on high, with orders never to be tampered with. Informed Catholics know that the old Roman liturgy, wrongly called Tridentine, goes back in important respects (Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the Time, and much else) 1500 years to Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604) and, more rudimentarily, to Pope Saint Damasus (366-384). Expressions such as the Mass of all time and the ancient liturgy are meant to underscore that essential continuity with Christian antiquity and to insinuate the revolutionary character of the Novus Ordo.

Portraying traditionalists as historical illiterates conveniently diverts attention from what ought to be the real focus of the debate, namely, whether or not the new Mass is in continuity with the natural and legitimate development of the Roman rite. Paul VI’s revisions cannot be put on a par with the relatively modest modifications introduced into the Missal by the popes from 1604 to 1962, as Monsignor Klaus Gamber explains: The popes, until Paul VI, made no change in the Order of the Mass properly so-called, whereas, especially after the Council of Trent, they introduced new Propers for new feasts. That no more suppressed the ‘Tridentine Mass’ than, for example, additions to the civil law would cause it to lapse.⁷ In other words, the Supreme Pontiffs from Clement VIII to Blessed John XXIII were intent on revisions and not revolution. That a revolution occurred in the wake of the Council is made painfully evident upon comparing the Missal of 1962 with that of 1970.

Guiding Principles of the Reform

R.: The question whether or not the reformed liturgy represents a break from organic liturgical development has been the subject of so much debate that the possible citations are numerous.⁸ Before comparing the 1962 and 1970 Missals, we ought to consider what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had in mind concerning the renewal of the liturgy. The Council intended the purest possible restoration of the ancient and long-lived Roman rite. According to article 50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Order of the Mass was to be revised so that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested and so that the faithful may be led to a devout and active participation in the liturgical action. This was to be achieved, on the one hand, by eliminating those parts which with the passage of time came to be duplicated, or were added with little advantage and, on the other hand, by restoring other parts which suffered loss through accidents of history.⁹ Hence some of the priest’s private prayers, certain ritual actions, and the so-called Last Gospel were dropped, while the General Intercessions (or Prayer of the Faithful), the Presentation of the Gifts, and a wider selection of Prefaces were added.

T.: But article 50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium is vague and thus interpretable in many ways. One man’s junk is another man’s treasure is an adage that applies to the topic at hand. What one liturgist deems a useless accretion, another sees as an enrichment. How much can one rearrange, subtract from, or add to a rite without destroying or mutilating it? At what point does revision become transmutation? Could not these changes have been made to the traditional liturgy without the creation of the Novus Ordo? Gamber posits that "the type of revision of the liturgy of the Mass envisioned by the Council was the Ordo Missae published in 1965."¹⁰ This revision did not drastically remodel the traditional rite, whereas Pope Paul VI’s Ordo Missae of 1969 created a new rite. The Tridentine Mass must therefore be preserved if the classical Roman rite is to survive.

R.: We are both interested in the survival of the Roman rite. However, I do not accept the hard-line traditionalist postulate that the new Order of Mass is a complete and irremediable break with tradition. Rather, I concur with the opinion of Monsignor Arthur Calkins of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: The continuity between our liturgical past and the present is far greater than any discontinuity.¹¹ Herein, I think, lies the rub: Whereas traditionalists advocate a return to the preconciliar Missal as an end in itself, I see it as the reference point for the reform of the Roman rite ordered by the Council.¹² By way of analogy, think of a student working on a mathematical problem who realizes he has made a mistake somewhere: he must go back, step by step, to find where he went wrong. He corrects the error and starts over from there. Similarly, we cannot simply go back to the old Missal and remain there. We should not scrap the positive aspects of the conciliar renewal. That would be like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

T.: What good has come out of the renewal?

R.: For starters, there is a greater measure of common participation in the Mass and other sacramental rites (although participation ought not be measured in decibels).¹³ The priest does not monopolize the rites as he has done for so long; rather, the people receive their proper place in the liturgical books, saying (or singing) the readings, responses, psalms, and prayers of various kinds that belong to them.¹⁴ The new liturgy makes more extensive use of Scripture than did the old.¹⁵ Concelebration, which previously was seen only at ordinations (and in a very different form), manifests the fraternity of the priesthood and is especially appropriate when the bishop is present.¹⁶ There is a simpler classification of feasts, with preeminence given to Sunday, the primordialis dies festus, the foundation and kernel of the whole liturgical year.¹⁷ The sacrificial and sacramental dimensions of the Eucharist are more closely held together in the reformed liturgy, at least in practice.¹⁸ Some use of the vernacular (in the Proper of the Mass) is desirable, I think, provided that the Latin text is faithfully translated and that at least the Ordinary of the Mass remains in Latin.¹⁹ Ironically, the revised rite allows greater use of chant and incense than did the old rite.²⁰ Another improvement has been the allowance for certain adaptations according to circumstances.²¹ Surely, these changes do not amount to a destruction of the traditional Roman liturgy.

T.: The relatively modest revisions ordered by Sacrosanctum Concilium could have been implemented without any substantial change to the traditional rite.

R.: I agree. Earlier you mentioned Monsignor Gamber’s thesis, that the Missal of 1965 fulfills the changes envisioned by the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Why, then, do traditionalists speak as if the 1962 Missal is the last of the pure Roman Missals, perfect